●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byJoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) writes:
There are at least three different reasons this is bad.
First, this is one more sign (of about 15 court cases at this point) that this court is willing to give Trump massive powers simply because he is pushing for them and they agree with him politically. And there's no reason to remotely think he's going to stop.
Second, it means that the Presidency (already an already too powerful office in the modern form for any one person) is going to be even more powerful under for the first time under a far more
bysg_oneill ( 159032 ) writes:
It is not lost on me that during the Biden and Obama administrations the supreme court tended towards limiting Executive power, then during the trump administrations have leant towards a massive expansion of them.
When sane government eventually returns i think it would be prudent for congress to actually set out some clear boundaries as to executive power, and work towards a separation of public service from executive power. Because this is all bullshit. In MOST countries while there will be ministers in ch
bybkmoore ( 1910118 ) writes:
It is not lost on me that during the Biden and Obama administrations the supreme court tended towards limiting Executive power, then during the trump administrations have leant towards a massive expansion of them.
Trump has been batting 1000 at the Supreme Court when it comes to executive power, or executive immunity. Either our Constitution was designed to have an elected King, and we only discovered that fact 230 years later, or our Supreme Court is supremely corrupt. I tend to believe the latter, as it seems there are only two rules at the Supreme Court: (1) There are no rules, and (2) Trump always wins.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
You missed an important option: Trump is winning because he is correct based on the facts.
You commies can't fathom it, but Trump follows the constitution. If you don't want the President in charge of these agencies, don't put them under the Executive branch, of which Donald Trump is the Chief.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bystevew ( 4845 ) writes:
When you are right you are right. Like usual, if you read the Constitution you find out that these "Stand Alone" agencies likely aren't Constitutional! What you say? Well there are just 3 parts of the government defined - you won't find those agencies described or the mechanisms Congress created in the Constitution if you go look. So they have to exist SOMEWHEE within one of the three branches. If the President is the on that gets to nominate the "principal officers" that are the folks that run these agen
bymaladroit ( 71511 ) writes:
If it's that simple, why did SCOTUS create an exception for the Federal Reserve?
byDarkOx ( 621550 ) writes:
why did SCOTUS create an exception for the Federal Reserve?
Fear of bullets. Anyone time someone poses a credible threat to the Federal reserve system, they tend to end up dead!
byPhact ( 4649149 ) writes:
good thing we have a convenient conspiracy theory to cover the situation when logic fails.
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
The problem is that our government has evolved well beyond what was spelled out in the constitution and said evolution was largely based on gentlemen's agreements and precedent to maintain the spirit of separation of powers. While this is sloppy as fuck what's happening now should not be celebrated. The old agreements and the appreciation of precedent have all gone out the window.
The practical effect of what this ruling does here is it fully politicizes the bureaucracy. Now instead of career bureaucrats that are experts at their job we'll get incompetent political cronies appointed for the duration of a presidency only to be turned over by the other political party when they come to power. It's a recipe for government incompetence.
It is also worrying in the context of the completely unprecedented (at least during peacetime) powers Trump is building up under himself. This along with Congress essential ceding their job to Trump creates very few limits on the presidency when one of the points of our constitution was to prevent such a singular powerful individual in our country.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byserviscope_minor ( 664417 ) writes:
The problem is that our government has evolved well beyond what was spelled out in the constitution and said evolution was largely based on gentlemen's agreements and precedent to maintain the spirit of separation of powers. While this is sloppy as fuck what's happening now should not be celebrated.
I used to agree, but I'm not sure I do now. The world is too complex and there are too many loopholes for laws for this kind of thing to be iron clad. For example, take the Supreme court. In terms of iron clad la
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
It's true that explicitly stated rules are not infallible but then again I don't think anything in this world is. That doesn't mean they arent far better then the nebulous shit we had built up. As we are seeing now it is all too easy to tear it all down in a moment and worse still, the people doing it can claim they are playing by the rules even though they are clearly violating the spirit of them.
byserviscope_minor ( 664417 ) writes:
I mean, I suppose I'm not sure. The UK had a similar system of course. But what I don't know if more robust systems actually do exist. My feeling is that once the country moves towards tearing it all up, actual laws are barely harder than convention.
It's a feeling I have, though, not a fact or anything.
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
Fair enough. I just feel we'd be better off if Trump and his people weren't somewhat accurate in saying that what they're doing is completely by the rules. I can't confirm that either though :)
bysg_oneill ( 159032 ) writes:
The thing is, most of the other western powers arent having these problems. Hell, Australias constitution just has a bit of stuff about separation of powers between the states and the feds, some immensely dull nonsense about the political organization of taxes and yeah its all dull procedures. No bill of rights or whatever. THAT part the judges kinda had to fudge by declaring that since it says we are a democracy theres some implied rights to free speech and yeah. But the thing is, it all runs just fine because those boring details in the constitution actually put a bunch of checks and balances in to limit the prime-minister to someone whos answerable to the parliment , the judiciary as being fully impartial, and so on. Even the relationship to the british crown has a check and balance (The prime minister can fire the govenor general, and the govenor general can fire the prime minister [and, as the joke goes, the CIA can fire them both]).
Basically, the US was one of the first modern democracies, so its got a pretty good excuse that theres a lot of flaws in the system. But maybe its time to look around at how other countries do things and plan up a version 2.0 update to the operating system. Because version 1.0 is starting to crash.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byLazLong ( 757 ) writes:
No, it has not "evolved beyond" what is framed in the Constitution. Congress has created the laws and institutions to implement the powers it is given. It's as simple as that. Go read Article I.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
Our government has changed immensely since our founding. If you want to live in denial of that fact that's fine with me.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
That was not the claim.
Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy.
The Constitution is what gives Congress the power to make laws which implement those other parts of the government, so in no way is that moving past the Constitution.
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
I'll reply to both of you the same since all you're doing is pointing out my sloppy use of language instead of spending some time thinking critically about this.
Here's just one example that I'm using because it fits this exact scenario.
The Bureaucracy - The founding fathers never envisioned such a robust centralized bureaucracy which is why they didn't bother to spend much time writing any rules for them. This is how we ended up with one Supreme Court decision in the 1930's that decided to limited executive
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
Sorry for the second post but you deserve a better reply than my first one to you.
Here are some great sources for you to read in regard to the evolution of our government. Please note that many of these changes happen without constitutional amendments. Not everything listed in these links apply to my point but quite a bit does.
https://www.history.com/articl... [history.com]
https://millercenter.org/presi... [millercenter.org]
https://courses.lumenlearning.... [lumenlearning.com]
Fun fact, were you aware that it was the Supreme Court that established the principl
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
The referenced second link was supposed to be this article https://www.siue.edu/~dhostet/... [siue.edu] . I accidentally copied a link twice instead of posting this one.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
The Bureaucracy - The founding fathers never envisioned such a robust centralized bureaucracy which is why they didn't bother to spend much time writing any rules for them.
I don't buy that argument, and here's why: They knew political parties were a problem but they didn't spend literally any time writing rules for them. What I think is that they wanted problems they thought they would be the only ones smart enough to exploit.
The founding fathers claimed all men were created equal, then gave the vote only to landed white males. They were not all the same, but they all colluded to preserve their power.
byLazLong ( 757 ) writes:
Did I say it hasn't changed? No. I said it has not "evolved beyond" what is framed in the Constitution. RTFC. Don't project.
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
I'll reply to both of you the same since all you're doing is pointing out my sloppy use of language instead of spending some time thinking critically about this.
Here's just one example that I'm using because it fits this exact scenario.
The Bureaucracy - The founding fathers never envisioned such a robust centralized bureaucracy which is why they didn't bother to spend much time writing any rules for them. This is how we ended up with one Supreme Court decision in the 1930's that decided to limited executive
●our current threshold.
byDragonslicer ( 991472 ) writes:
The practical effect of what this ruling does here is it fully politicizes the bureaucracy. Now instead of career bureaucrats that are experts at their job we'll get incompetent political cronies appointed for the duration of a presidency only to be turned over by the other political party when they come to power. It's a recipe for government incompetence.
That's the goal. Republicans will prove that government is incompetent, even if it means sabotaging it themselves.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
Okay facist!
Okay idiot!
It is just strait up lying to say the intent was not have the executive chose a staff friendly to him and his agenda, presumably the agenda supported by the majority who elected him/her.
No it's not. It straight up took a supreme court decision to make this change. Try to keep up better with the news.
Progressives had congressional majorities, often significant one for most of the later 20th century, you know that era where modernization started happening far more rapidly and all those "gentleman's agreements" were used to run the country. They certainly could have tried to create some more Amendments and codify those but they did not. It is almost as if these oh so brilliant advisors and minds did not see this coming.
The lack of codification is certainly a problem when dealing with dishonest actors isn't it? Whelp, lesson learned for the Dems I guess. Of course this is exactly what I was getting at.
Elections SHOULD have consequences. People should get what they vote for, that is not compatible with a parochial group of Ivy Grads making all the important policy decisions without any real direct accountability to voters.
Our political system was very specifically designed so as to not have these crazy, rapid changes that Trump is pushing through. The founding fathers very specifically put all sorts of things in place t
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
Ha, "autopen". Yeah, you sound super objective with this question starting off with that manufactured nonsense.
As for your question though, did Biden rapidly destabilize the country in one year to the point that we've had multiple political assimilations and even more attempts? No he did not and that alone should make him a better president to any thinking person.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Better than the autopenis? Yes. That's not even a question. If he can't find a teenager he'll fuck a flag.
● your current threshold.
bymaladroit ( 71511 ) writes:
People should get what they vote for
I voted for USAID. It became the law of the land, through Congress and the process outlined in the constitution.
Donald Trump, in direct violation of the laws of the United States, destroyed it.
A system where the election results of only one office has consequences is both unconstitutional and a recipe for disaster.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bytwinirondrives ( 10502753 ) writes:
The point? Make decisions based on good principles and good things well happen. It seems like the only principle being checked is if the president is a white male? On the first day of Obama's administration he was threatened with impeachment if he deported "the wrong immigrants", failed to increase the value of the DOW stocks 10% to15% a year, failed to make the FTC and FCC bipartician, ...... trump could right now take a crap on the white house lawn for everyone to see and take with them if they want and i
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
It's not only an official act, it's official business.
● your current threshold.
bybussdriver ( 620565 ) writes:
Aside from the constitution being flawed and totally not a religious document as some idiots believe, the Congress is the most powerful branch of government. This co-equal BS is like saying apples and oranges are equal.
The congress writes the laws; which is the greatest power and that is why so many people share that power. The "CEO" only can execute those laws; not rewrite them or interpret them. It's supposed to be a much weaker position and still a design flaw that other governments improved with ministers. The courts settle misinterpretations (2nd most powerful, split over multiple people;) especially, intentionally stupid interpretations - they can't invent new laws. If they do, congress can clarify with new law and if they get ridiculously corrupt, they get fired by congress. If the "CEO" gets out of line, they can fire the president too; being like the board of directors.
The "CEO" doesn't have invented powers beyond the rules or even the policies and it doesn't matter what a corrupt court says because the "board" can fire them all at will with only the "shareholders" to keep them in check at elections... when the system works and the voters are not too gullible. Which they are.
Trump may as well start firing congressional staffers too; since he ignores all the laws anyway. I bet the GOP won't even push back if he fires all their staff...
Parent
twitter
facebook
byGrimolfr ( 9749826 ) writes:
Congress would be the most powerful branch, if they didn't delegate all their authority to executive branch agencies or to the President and empower them to make 'rules' which are effectively laws. Because Congress never wants to take a vote that might cost them votes in the next election, and would rather be able to just blame some unelected agency for doing it, or leave it to the courts to decide. They can't even put together a working budget most years, even though that's supposed to be one of their pr
bybussdriver ( 620565 ) writes:
In a functioning democracy, like many who are in better shape-- their prime minister and an election would be held if they ever couldn't figure out a budget. A shutdown is unheard of and the definition of incompetence! In the USA, it didn't happen until the 1990s and the rise of propaganda "news" along with a booming economy to distract people from paying attention and firing everybody responsible.
This is why systems do better whereby elections can be called and people fired by the voting public during ex
bystrikethree ( 811449 ) writes:
the Congress is the most powerful branch of government.
It would, and should be; however, money has altered that and granted the sitting president the power of a king. The mechanisms are not perfect yet, so there is some friction, but expect there to be no more friction after the current sitting king is gone. The precedent has been set so the population will allow it.
byceoyoyo ( 59147 ) writes:
That is in fact the way it used to work. US presidents were sort of nobodies. The chief civil servant, if you will. The powerful, famous president started to be more of a thing after WWII.
byMr. Barky ( 152560 ) writes:
I am not a Constitutional scholar... so this is just an amateur reading. The Constitution doesn't say a lot of what a president does, especially with respect to laws passed by Congress.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America
And the President swears
to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
The Constitution says that Congress makes laws (and the procedure for passing them or vetoing them, etc.). While this isn't explicit, "protecting and defending the Constitution" would seem to me to include faithfully following the laws duly passed under that Constitution - otherwise what in the world does a law mean and why even bother putting it in the Constitution?
Nothing that I see in the Constitution says the President is able to ignore the law whenever he wants. If a law says you cannot fire for some reason, the President cannot do that. The Supreme Court actually hinted that they believed this to be the case when they made their comments that the Fed might be protected.
The Supreme Court is being sneaky with this one. They aren't saying that the President has the right to do so - just that they won't stop him at the moment. This puts Rebecca Slaughter in an untenable position unless she happens to be wealthy enough to go for years without a salary and simultaneously pay huge legal bills until the court case can be decided. Without someone backing her, she will be forced to find another job and drop the case - rendering it moot. Even if she does prevail in court, the damage is done. Someone else will do her job until all the appeals are exhausted, which may be years from now. Possibly just in time for the next President (especially if a Democrat) to be prohibited from doing so.
As a side note, "the best of my Ability" might be a get-out clause ;)
Parent
twitter
facebook
byDragonslicer ( 991472 ) writes:
...until all the appeals are exhausted, which may be years from now.
This part, at least, shouldn't be true. If I read correctly, the Supreme Court scheduled arguments for December, which means they should publish their decision no later than a few months after that. It's possible that they'll pull some bullshit move like "clarifying" the guidelines from precedent and send the case back to the lower courts, but personally I don't see that as being likely.
byLazLong ( 757 ) writes:
@stevew:
If you read the Constitution, you will come to the realization that these agencies and commissions are ENTIRELY constitutional. The Necessary and Proper Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, gives Congress the power to enact all laws necessary to accomplish the tasks assigned to Congress by the Constitution. The commission in question, the FTC, regulates commerce, which is explicitly a power given to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. Congress enacted the law that created the FTC and governs how it will be run, the FTC Act in 1914. The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 created a standalone Federal Trade Commission composed of five commissioners appointed by the President with Senate approval. No more than three commissioners may belong to the same political party, and each serves a seven-year term, with staggered initial terms of three to seven years to ensure continuity. The President designates one commissioner as Chair, and any member may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
So, if in its final decision, the Supreme Court says the President has the power to remove commissioners at will and populate the commission with all Republicans, then they will plainly be telling the President he can violate the law and do as he pleases. You know, like the immunity they gave him months ago. Which of course is completely frakked. My theory is that this is payback for FDR's actions. MAGA is in the process of tearing down the institutions and frameworks that were created and instituted, and the stability and rule of law that helped create the US as the world power it is. We are heading the way of a banana republic, all for short-term gain and the ability to rule over the convulsing corpse that we will become.
Parent
twitter
facebook
●ath your current threshold.
byChrisPa ( 8510271 ) writes:
Meh, what you actually would note from recent events is the US government worked despite the Constitution (when it worked). It wasn't checks and balances or specific design of the Constitution -- it was the people and culture that dictated bounds of accepted behavior.
The document itself is a disaster, especially if one tries to use a lawyer's grasp of history to justify their favored outcome of the day.
byflink ( 18449 ) writes:
When you are right you are right. Like usual, if you read the Constitution you find out that these "Stand Alone" agencies likely aren't Constitutional! What you say?
IF being standalone isn't constitutional, then they should be dissolved altogether. These are rule making organizations that congress has delegated some of it's legislative power to. Outside of enforcement, they are supposed to be independent. The executive has no constitutional right to rule by fiat.
If that is not possible then they must be disbanded and congress must regulate drugs, trade, radio spectrum, highways, etc. through statute. Of course the country would grind to a halt and all our infrastru
byArchieBunker ( 132337 ) writes:
Take the guns first, go through due process second
-Donald Trump 02/28/2018
https://thehill.com/homenews/a... [thehill.com]
● your current threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...